Mark O'Mara and Don West Press Conference

O'Mara and West at press conference. O'Mara begins by reading a letter he wrote to the Seminole County Sheriff before the verdict thanking him and the department for their excellent security and ensuring the process was peaceful.

Don West: The state's actions were disgraceful.

West on the opening joke: It was a needed disconnect from the act the state put on in it's opening argument. [More...]

O'Mara answer to a question about whether it was a fair fight. He needs to apologize to every public defender in the state for his comment that the state was treating the defense like brand new public defenders. They outfunded us, they made it extraordinarily difficult with discovery.

Question: What was the best moment: When the jury said not guilty.

What about future civil proceedings: We will seek and we will get immunity in any future civil proceeding.

Answer to question about race: If George Zimmerman were black, he would never have been charged with a crime in this case. This became a focus for a civil rights event, and GZ was used to create a civil rights violation. Those people who decided to make him the scapegoat would not have done so had he been black. And had they done even a little background research, they would have seen he did not deserve it.

I don't think the press attends many trials. They seem to think the way Judge Nelson treated Don West was an aberration. Defense lawyers (and sometimes prosecutors) get that treatment all the time. We're used to it. It's our job to keep fighting and not fold in the face of it. And after the judge rules against us, it's our job to insist we get to make a record of our objection to the ruling. If there's no objection after the ruling, the court of appeals may decide not to even consider the argument against the ruling, or else use the "harmless error" standing.

< Angela Corey: Doublespeak | TalkLeft Appreciation Week >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Excellent!!! (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Char Char Binks on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 10:00:39 PM EST

    Just (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Towanda on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 10:14:29 PM EST
    in accord with the law of Florida.  

    That is what this is.

    I still have problems with the law of Florida -- and the laws in my state too much like it now.  

    A few unarmed young men here have been killed in similar situations, soon after the death of Trayvon Martin and soon after the enactment of those laws in my state.  

    No one was charged here -- but the lack of charges or any reaction at all, really, also has not stopped the shooting of unarmed people who go onto the wrong porch or go to a convenience store for a snack. Three unarmed young men of color have died here in the last year for doing just that.  The laws need to be changed, somehow.  


    One of the tragedies of this case (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 11:15:11 AM EST
    is that it takes attention away from those cases where there is solid evidence to prosecute, and minorities are shot without legal justification. It is my hope that we don't lose sight of continuing injustices as a result.

    A prowler (1.00 / 3) (#20)
    by Char Char Binks on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 10:47:53 PM EST
    on the wrong porch probably shouldn't be surprised if he gets shot.

    Why do you assume he was a prowler? (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Towanda on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 11:12:03 PM EST
    That could get you in trouble in some states.

    He was not a prowler.  He was at the wrong house.

    Look up the case of Yoshihiro Hattori in 1992 and learn.

    Twenty five years later, this country has not learned a thing.  


    At least if they're in Afghanistan (none / 0) (#25)
    by JDM in NYC on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 11:10:46 PM EST
    which is an exemplary model of an armed society being a polite society.

    colorado has a make my day law (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 11:32:15 PM EST
    allowing homeowners/occupants to shoot intruders. No need to go to Afghanistan.

    Go Mark for taking (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Teresa on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 10:10:33 PM EST
    on the media. I don't blame the Martin family AT ALL. I do blame the media.

    Even Jeffrey Toobin, when he could have been more gracious by not still casting blame on GZ, but accepting self-defense, did not do anyone any good.

    Another strong close by the defense (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by cboldt on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 10:15:37 PM EST
    And the press tee'd it up for him!

    MoM at his best! (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by star on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 10:20:21 PM EST
    Loved it when he took it to media..In this whole fiasco media is the biggest farce. I understand Martin family wanting answers.and my heart is heavy for them and the young life lost.But trial by media lost today and that is a good thing for the country.  

    he will never (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 11:41:46 PM EST
    be as harsh the truth warrants. Here's my view of the role of the media in this case.

    This is you at your finest! (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by DebFrmHell on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 11:45:27 PM EST
    It is beyond shameful that on the anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, our national and cable news channels, instead of paying respect to the rights and individual freedoms we all enjoy today, choose to fill the airwaves with guilt-mongers, who out of ignorance or to promote their personal partisan agenda, unite to declare a man guilty before his defense has even begun to present its case.

    Wow (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by friendofinnocence on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 10:33:18 PM EST
    O'Mara's decision to take the high road worked - even calling Trayvon Martin a "good kid" in front of the jury.

    A stunning victory for MOM and Don West, two fantastic lawyers.

    Although I dislike guns, (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by SuzieTampa on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 10:52:54 PM EST
    you can't say that people carrying guns is a mark of cultural decline. Americans have always owned firearms, often with fewer restrictions.

    Stop listening to Sunny H. (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Dexter on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 11:31:20 PM EST

    yes, and stop quoting her (none / 0) (#37)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 11:43:44 PM EST
    She's one ex-prosecutor out of hundreds with an opinion. The case is not about her.

    Ok. Sorry, Jeralyn (2.80 / 5) (#45)
    by Teresa on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 12:43:05 AM EST
    I'm headed back to my cocoon now. Too much death and divorce in one year for me to get upset about other things.

    I got admonished in two threads tonight for discussing the media, yet Anne calls TeresainPa a "Fking idiot" in a post that still stands. Since she also tells people they can't ask a non-Zimmerman legal question in an open thread, I guess she's part-owner or moderator now. And the flat out meanness displayed to christinep makes me wonder why she doesn't take her intelligence somewhere else since it seems to be ok. I thought it was no attacks on posters.

    Take care.

    (love you jb and ruffian among others)


    No, Teresa, I did not call anyone a name; (4.20 / 5) (#59)
    by Anne on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 09:04:19 AM EST
    if you read the whole comment, it was me responding to all the comments that GZ wasn't specifically referencing TM when he made the "fking punks" comment - I wanted to point out how ridiculous that was by giving her an example of me dropping it into a comment to her, and seeing if she would buy my argument that I was just expressing general frustration and not speaking directly about her.

    Apparently, others got it, so I have no idea why you don't.

    And my "admonishment" that you consider ignoring all the post-verdict media nonsense was actually sent out of concern for your increasing emotional reaction to something you said you wanted, and truly was merely a suggestion for how you might deal with that.

    I do find it interesting that you have not been at all upset by the constant bellowing some posters have engaged in, demanding that others just shut up, declaring that their opinions are not wanted, and that those offering them were doing so because they were latent racists just stirring sh!t up.

    Or the comments of people like "Char Char Binks," who never missed an opportunity to make a snide comment about a dead kid, invoking any number of ugly stereotypes.  Or those of the poster who referred to a commenter as "a criminal like yourself."

    The list goes on, Teresa, if you really want to see it and acknowledge it.  


    You know Anne, I got up this (none / 0) (#107)
    by Teresa on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 04:25:26 PM EST
    (Jeralyn, previewing this is, it's long. I'm making a donation today and a better one when I sell my Mom's condo. Please forgive me for the space, but I owe Anne (and you) an answer.)

    morning and my comment to J was still on my screen. I had no plans to read another word about GZ the rest of  my life, unless there are civil suits, when my legal interests would probably then kick back in. My reaction on reading that was "holy hell I can't believe I wrote that to Jeralyn who has been nothing but kind to me". I should have gone to bed before I wrote it because reading her reply to me after a night's sleep showed me just how far over the edge I am, or was until today.

    So, first of all, I have a card my doctor gave me a month ago for a grief counselor. I'm calling tomorrow because I need it. You, Ruffian and even Oculus in her funny one sentence way have made gentle comments to me along the lines of you're too invested in this, maybe back yourself emotionally a little back from this, which was very true and meant in my best interests. I agree and accept it.

    One of the reasons my "investment" in this during the last month went overboard came from watching TV which I haven't done since college basketball ended. It was mouth-dropping to see TV commentators with their opinions that couldn't have come from actually watching the trial or they wouldn't have made so many comments that were not at all what was said in court. Totally uninformed. That eye opening experience will serve me well from now on because I can be pretty naive. When the next election rolls around and I turn my TV back on, I'll know to believe only about a third of what I see from our media. Do they get anything right on anything? Especially national or world events that I might care about? Probably not based on what I saw. I used TL like Twitter, where I should have made my umpteen comments. I couldn't because I don't know a soul that I consider a real life or online friend on Twitter that 1) doesn't think GZ belongs in jail and 2) watched the trial. Because of my current physical limitations, I had the time to watch and they didn't. I didn't want to alienate those people that I care about.

    At least three times I wrote comments with the heading "^^^Jeralyn" when I saw something really offensive. Since it wasn't spam, I didn't want to use the "Site Violator" that she asked us to use years ago. When the threads got deleted, my comments to those people disappeared, too. Did I miss some? Probably many. Some I did see were disgusting, against J's rules, and I said so. Except AC360 and the trial, I didn't read most comments in real time. I read them about 5 or 6am the next morning.

    As far as your comment to TeresainPa, earlier today I opened a tab with only her comment and your reply and asked my brother to read it. He said "what the hell are you reading" and I told him never mind that, tell me what you see. He said the Anne lady is calling the other lady a fking idiot by being sarcastic. That is what you did, Anne. You know it wasn't meant as a general example. Was it my business? No. But it bothered me because you have the intellect and terrific writing skills to express your opinion without doing that.

    Having missed all the comments that went on from Feb 26, 2012 until early July or late June this year, I'm sure I missed a lot of things that led to your obvious frustration with comments that were trashing Trayvon or were flat out ignorant if not racist outright. I didn't think Teresa's comment was that, in any way. That's why it bothered me.

    Peace, Anne. You're still one of my online heroes, even though you're mad at me. Now I'm off to make a donation to Jeralyn for taking up so much space on her blog. I just wanted to explain to you where my frustration came from, even though I don't know how much your frustration has come from things I didn't see over the past 17 months, which I should take into account. I'd have to write another book to explain to you why I care so much about the justice system making mistakes, some intentional, that just make me angry. Many against black people. Some that I've worked on my own, in person, with money and volunteer help to my brother to try to keep people from being railroaded. It bothers me the worst of anything outside the health of my own family. I think I should have been a lawyer or social worker if I could live my life over. Take care, and I mean that. (Now let's see if my min-novel is too long to post.)


    I'm not mad at you, Teresa. (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Anne on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 09:18:55 PM EST
    It's a given that we have no control over how the words we write will be perceived by others, but I think it's a mistake for the reader to believe he or she knows better than the writer what was intended.

    I could have chosen someone else for my "what if I said this..." comment, but I did deliberately choose TeresainPA.  Why?  Because I was tired of her bellowing at people with whom she disagrees, tired of her constant accusations of race card-playing as a means to shut people up, tired of her don't-fk--with-me-I'm-right attitude.  And I knew if I tried that with anyone else, she'd be right up my a$$ anyway, so why not just beard the lion in her den?

    The ridiculousness of the argument that was being made was driving me nuts: George was just being generally frustrated when he said "fking punks," and wasn't directing it at the one and only person out that night: Trayvon.  That's just nonsense.

    And who else is weighing in here?  The inimitable squeaky, probably thrilled for the opportunity to take a shot at me; like getting three extra moves in Candy Crush, I guess.  Thrilling on a very small scale.  

    Whatever.  You can choose to take me at my word, or not; I can't force you or anyone to believe me when I explain my thoughts or the reasons for my comments.

    I know you've been through a very hard time - and I could see that this case was beginning not to take your mind off all of that, but to start eating at you in an unhealthy way.  Maybe being able to see the injustice in George's case allowed you to channel some of your feelings about the injustice you felt in what happened to your mom - and now that the case is over and George has been vindicated, you are still left with the injustice you started with - that your beautiful, wonderful mom was reduced to a shell of her former self.

    My heart hurts for the pain you clearly feel so deeply.  Please accept my apologies for anything I've done that's contributed to that.


    I am crushed (1.25 / 4) (#58)
    by TeresaInPa on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 08:43:02 AM EST
    to think that the queen of pomp thinks so poorly of me. However will I go on? (sob)
    Teresa you are okay, resist the arm chair internet therapists.  I have enjoyed talking to you. Hang around, don't ever take anything personally when it happens on Al Gore's Internets. That's not what he invented them for (kidding) cause he is one of the good guys.  = )

    Peace to all of you (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Teresa on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 11:50:26 PM EST
    I'm checking out. I said a heartfelt prayer for Trayvon's family. I hope they find peace down the road. It's a long one, very long.

    Any liberals supporting the verdict? (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by rob411 on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 10:32:13 AM EST
    This is just for my sanity.

    Are there any liberal commentators, besides Jeralyn and Dershowitz, who support this verdict? It's seriously depressing seeing the liberal blogs come down so uniformly against the verdict and with the same factually-disproven assumptions as they had before the trial.

    Please let me know if you find ANYONE!

    I support any verdict arrived at after a fair (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by ruffian on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 12:51:57 PM EST
    trial, as I believe this one was. I agree with Mark Nejame who stated last night "Justice is a process, not an outcome".

    Since you asked, I wondering how many conservatives supported the verdict in our last "trial of the century" in this area, only last year. I heard the jury called all kinds of names then too.


    No (4.00 / 3) (#80)
    by gaf on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 10:56:00 AM EST
    same factually-disproven assumptions as they had before the trial.

    The DKos Echo Chamber in particular is painfully ill-informed and angry.


    I've lost all interest in participating at DK (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by ZucchiTadre on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 01:46:53 PM EST
    It's disturbing how easily dissenting opinions are responded to with charges of racism.  Even my 4 digit userid hasn't shielded me from those sorts of attacks.  The environment is toxic and probably beyond repair at this point.

    WTF Dershowitz a Liberal? (none / 0) (#96)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 01:29:43 PM EST
    Wow your idea of liberal, granted a liberal is now way to the right of what it was, is really distorted.

    Dershowitz (none / 0) (#110)
    by rob411 on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 05:23:27 PM EST
    Yes, I was reaching but I'll take anything at this point. Anybody vaguely associated with the left who thinks justice was served.

    yes there are, when this first came to light I (none / 0) (#106)
    by buddabelly on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 04:11:27 PM EST
    personally thought Z was guilty as heck.....Then more and more came out including much not included at trial that started the thought process....

    After watching as much of the prosecution as I could stand and seeing it was all a play on emotion instead of a factual description of the events that night I started to see a deserved acquittal....after the Defense case was presented, I knew the prosecutors were done and it would be an acquittal, and a deserved one with the evidence presented.......


    I think there is some redeeming social value (5.00 / 3) (#85)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 12:15:55 PM EST
    to interjecting respectfully stated comments which do not necessarily conform to the stated goals of this site. Although reading the site after the verdict was announced made me sad.  

    I think one of the takeaway points from (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 12:47:34 PM EST
    all of this is the same one that I have to constantly tell my own two boys: "I don't care what he said to you, that does not give you the right to hit him."

    The adage that "the best defense is a good offense" may be true in football but probably not in human relations, whether at the inter-personal or inter-national levels.

    Does that apply to the invasion (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by MKS on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 01:55:11 PM EST
    of Iraq by Bush as pre-emptive war?

    West explained the challenges of Rachel Jeantel (5.00 / 3) (#98)
    by lily on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 01:51:18 PM EST
    Several people complained about the length and convoluted nature of West's examination of Rachel Jeantel. West explained the purpose and difficulties of his questions which was to pin down the time of the call in which RJ claims she heard TM ask GZ "why are you following me". This provided the information to determine the four minute delay in which TM did not return to Green's townhouse.

    If the Martins decide to sue in civil court or if Holder is foolish enough to retry George in federal court, the text messages and ping log data will expose even more of the fraud and disinformation in this case. Some how I doubt Corey/BDLR will be happy about that.

    The one point I agree with you (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by ding7777 on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 02:47:42 PM EST
    is Dr. Bao and his staff did a unprofessional job.

    Perhaps, also, the  police would have made some effort to determine the identify of the victim. I can't imagine that Sanford has so many homicide victims that they routinely leave bodies for days unattended.

    If your speaking of Trayvon,  Tracy was contacted the next morning.

    There were many aiming their guns at Omara (4.50 / 2) (#11)
    by Jack203 on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 10:28:36 PM EST
    if GZ lost or there was a hung jury.

    Bravo West and OMara.  Great job!

    Winning by taking the high road (no TM drug history, fighting history, photos, tweets, school suspensions, attendance) was much more difficult.  (I understand Nelson ruled against many of those).

    Obviously, there was still reasonable doubt without showing how troubled TM was.  Omara has been vindicated.  I've always really liked and related to Omara, so I'm very happy about it.

    Is it "taking the high road" if defense (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 02:32:02 AM EST
    counsel is barred by the trial court from introducing proffered evidence?

    And then talking about it out of court (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by ruffian on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 06:43:03 AM EST
    whenever possible? Apparently the high road has eroded.

    In CA that is a violation of the ethics code. (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 09:12:47 AM EST
    I thought West and MOM were doing fine (5.00 / 4) (#66)
    by ruffian on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 09:28:35 AM EST
    until they again started casting  aspersions at the victim. Utterly unnecessary last night.

    Imagine their frustration... (none / 0) (#116)
    by Cashmere on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 09:19:18 PM EST
    It appears both West and O'Mara truly believe in George Zimmerman's innocence (not just that he is "not guilty").  They seem to have become close during this trial and I imagine O'Mara is so very tired of Zimmerman being portrayed as evil by the media (and look how overboard the prosecution's attempt to portray Zimmerman as hateful, full of evil intent, etc. in order to "try" to get a murder 2 conviction).  I say good for O'Mara, sticking up for George Zimmerman.

    Zimmerman's troubled life was not detailed either (none / 0) (#18)
    by Palli on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 10:42:27 PM EST
    It was far from troubled (none / 0) (#57)
    by Jack203 on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 08:38:38 AM EST
    And I would have welcomed it.  Every bit of it.

    If I was a juror, I would want to know both their histories and everything about their character I could find.


    There are many good reasons (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by ruffian on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 09:12:46 AM EST
    such things are not admitted when they are more prejudicial than probative. I'm fine with a judge making that call.

    The right to self defense (4.00 / 4) (#21)
    by Char Char Binks on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 10:49:01 PM EST
    has been upheld!

    West's reply about relationship with Judge Nelson (2.00 / 1) (#53)
    by cboldt on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 06:43:59 AM EST
    A CNN reporter asked West a two part question.  The first part was about his back and forth with the judge, and whether or not he felt he got fair treatment.

    His response, "I'd like to keep my bar license for a couple more years.  And your second question was?"

    OK if Justice is blind (1.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Palli on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 10:38:00 PM EST
    then all of you lawyers and believers in the LAW better get out there and start fighting to change these gunslinger laws.

    No one is safe now.
    But I will never to succumb to hold a gun.  
    My humanity means too much to me.  

    a gun is just a thing (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by TeresaInPa on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 10:45:32 PM EST
    it can not take your humanity. TM is not dead because GZ had a gun.  He is dead because TM decided to assault someone.

    Do you have a citation (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by friendofinnocence on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 10:50:47 PM EST
    to support your contention that no one is safe because of "these gunslinger laws"?

    I keep hearing this, but there doesn't seem to be any data to support it.  Self-defense has always been legal.  


    gun rights is not the topic here (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 11:42:35 PM EST
    please don't hijack the thread.

    Well done, defense. (none / 0) (#1)
    by scribe on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 09:51:36 PM EST
    Better them than me.

    I haven't read the other (none / 0) (#4)
    by Teresa on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 10:11:52 PM EST
    thread yet, but I'm defending Don West in advance. He heard at least the end of that Corey PC and I don't blame him for being mad.

    NAACP (none / 0) (#8)
    by Teresa on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 10:22:52 PM EST
    Oh no. Wants a DOJ investigation now. This isn't good.

    Ignore them (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Jack203 on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 09:16:19 AM EST
    It ain't happening.

    Agree. This DOJ is not touching this (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by ruffian on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 09:30:52 AM EST
    Betcha a sawbuck on that (none / 0) (#77)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 10:25:38 AM EST

    Announcement before the 2014 midterms. Loser pays Jeralyn's tip jar. What say?



    You're on! (none / 0) (#94)
    by ruffian on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 01:13:08 PM EST
    remind me when the time comes...I'm old...

    Back atchs (none / 0) (#105)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 03:28:18 PM EST
    Im old too

    the end of double jeopardy protection (none / 0) (#10)
    by reasonableperson on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 10:28:31 PM EST
    If DOJ brings some trumped up charges I will be surprised and SERIOUSLY concerned.  But the UK famously threw out its double jeopardy protections in a similarly politicized case, which is worrying.  It appears that in this day and age racialized issues trump even our most sacred rights and traditions.

    There is no double jeopardy protection (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by Peter G on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 10:40:46 PM EST
    against a subsequent prosecution for the same acts by a different sovereign, that is, here, by the federal government after a conviction or acquittal in state court.  This was established by the Supreme Court in 1922, reaffirmed in 1959, and not open to debate (no matter how unfair it sometimes seems).  The federal government has a general policy of restraint against using this power, but civil rights cases are a notable exception.

    Since the FBI basically cleared (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Teresa on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 11:35:54 PM EST
    him of being a racist, or not a hate crime, wouldn't that make it more difficult for them to do that, though?

    yes but (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by reasonableperson on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 01:42:28 AM EST
    logical coherence would imply that, but how quickly have previous investigators' conclusions been thrown away in this case when they didn't support the politically desired outcome?

    Yes I know that, but I think it is incredibly wrong.  Especially given the massive expansion of federal criminal law, the double jeopardy protection would be utterly nullified.

    I've never heard of the (none / 0) (#27)
    by friendofinnocence on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 11:19:11 PM EST
    Federal Government trying a person for murder who was acquitted by a jury in a state court.  Has it ever happened?

    Oh, yes. Several times, where (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Peter G on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 11:53:58 PM EST
    there were acquittals by all-white juries in cases with racial overtones (or worse) in the Jim Crow South.  Klan murders of civil rights workers, for example.  The Army (a federal agency) did it in the Hennis case in 2010 as well, notwithstanding his 1989 acquittal of the same murders (of a neighbor on the military base, and two of her children) in state court.

    Rodney King (none / 0) (#38)
    by MKS on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 11:44:49 PM EST
    Not murder but the same concept in practice.....

    Jeralyn (none / 0) (#12)
    by squeaky on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 10:31:12 PM EST
    How does O'Mara plan to get immunity from civil suits?

    Is he going to get through SYG immunity?

    I think it is clear that (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Peter G on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 10:41:42 PM EST
    that is what he means.

    He said civil suits (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by MKS on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 11:47:18 PM EST
    will be met with SYG hearings.

    I saw two criminal defense attorneys (none / 0) (#14)
    by Payaso on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 10:34:21 PM EST
    at the top of their game.

    Kudos to both men and their team for a job well done.

    apologies in advance to Anne (none / 0) (#28)
    by Teresa on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 11:23:48 PM EST
    But, Sunny H spent the whole afternoon and early evening praising the jury over and over for what a good, intellectual panel there were, etc. She was giddy at the question they asked.

    Now she says justice was NOT served, her kids will have to be scared to walk home with candy, etc.

    Exlain that to me anybody.

    Did not find him innocent (none / 0) (#29)
    by Teresa on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 11:31:01 PM EST
    All I'm hearing. No, they found he was not guilty due to self-defense (that couldn't be disproven). That's not necessarily the same thing. That "not innocent" may depend on the individual juror, though I doubt now any would have the nerve to say it. I think to at least some of them, they did find him "innocent".

    They need to stick to their belief, if they give interviews, but I think they'll be intimidated by the press.

    He needs to move far away. It's sad in a way when I read about all the black friends he has, even an old girlfriend. I hate this happened so much, for both those families. It's just sad.

    Jeralyn (none / 0) (#33)
    by Teresa on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 11:39:52 PM EST
    Mark Nejame taking on Corey's district big time. They are the ones who overcharege young black men the most. They need to be looked at.

    Good for him. Bunch of hypocrits.

    Do you really think (none / 0) (#35)
    by MKS on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 11:42:02 PM EST
    anyone will really notice outside of the Zimmerman case?

    No, and that's a da*n shame. (none / 0) (#41)
    by Teresa on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 11:48:36 PM EST
    We don't have to be in or around the justice system to know how unfairly young black men are treated in our courts.

    If this case brought about change in that regard, it would be a good tribute to Trayvon and something everyone should get behind.


    A disingenuous statement, I think: (none / 0) (#48)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 02:36:47 AM EST
    Answer to question about race: If George Zimmerman were black, he would never have been charged with a crime in this case.

    you may be taking it out of context (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 03:10:33 AM EST
    I took his comment to be a reference to how the arrest was orchestrated by Crump and his public relations team who brought in the media and civil rights groups to portray the case as a civil rights issue. He was saying if Zimmerman had been black, they wouldn't have been interested in him as a civil rights issue, and there wouldn't have been an arrest (since the police had no evidence to dispute his version until Crump came along with his 16/19 year old girlfriend/friend who "blew Zimmerman's defense out of the water" according to Crump.

    Would Sharpton and Jackson have gotten involved, would there have been a million hoodie march if Zimmerman were black? Without the mischaracterization of this case as a civil rights case, there would have been no extraordinary pressure to arrest and the investigation would have run its natural course. Zimmerman probably wouldn't have been arrested since his injuries supported self-defense and there was (and is) insufficient evidence to refute him.

    At least that's what I thought he was saying.


    I cannot agree w/much of your reply but (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 03:17:00 AM EST
    that is probably the defense view of why Zimmerman was arrested, charged, and tried.  

    IMO there would be no case at all (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by ruffian on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 06:48:15 AM EST
    If the roles were reversed right from the start. GZ is black and TM is white walking alone through a mixed race community, GZ keeps driving to Target.

    This wouldn't be a story (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by jbindc on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 07:03:00 AM EST
    if both GZ and TM were black either.

    Molly yman and others were banned for saying that (3.00 / 2) (#83)
    by Leopold on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 11:15:25 AM EST
    Just recently.

    Total inconsistency in how commenters are treated here.


    Why does your side have so much trouble picturing (2.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Jack203 on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 09:21:44 AM EST
    a white 17 year old punk....hoodie up, pants half way down his butt,  meandering around a crime ridden multi-raced neighborhood in the rain stoned?

    Easiest thing in the world for me to picture. I don't know what world you live in where there are no bad white kids mixed up in drugs and fighting and constantly suspended from high school.   In mine there are plenty.


    Maybe because I'm picturing it (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by ruffian on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 09:39:02 AM EST
    as a white kid in tan pants, not low slung, yes with a hood up against the on again off again rain, and knowing nothing of his history. On the phone walking slow. I would like to know how many calls to police have been made about such kids.

    In fact I suggest that the best form of protest might be to start making such calls en masse.


    What if... (5.00 / 0) (#74)
    by DebFrmHell on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 09:49:42 AM EST
    you don't know anything about the two individuals with the exception of an altercation, one with injuries about the head and one with a gun shot.  I would come to the conclusion that one w/injuries shot in self-defense.  That is what the law is for.

    "What ifs" kill me.  If the argument can only be defined with and "if"  then, TO ME, it is not an argument.  It is tilting at windmills.

    It is what it is.  No ifs, ands, or buts about it.  

    Just a person with an opinion.


    What was it (2.00 / 1) (#70)
    by jbindc on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 09:41:58 AM EST
    That made GZ suspicious that TM was on drugs?

    The fact that he told the dispatcher that (whether he was right or wrong) tells me that TM was just not quietly walking slowly down the street.


    Most likely (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by ExcitableBoy on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 09:44:47 AM EST
    the phone conversation Trayvon was having on a headset that George couldn't see. The THC levels were too low for actual erratic behavior.

    It could be he was stopping and meandering (none / 0) (#101)
    by Darby on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 02:44:00 PM EST
    While on the phone. I often circle about whe finishing a call. In the night with a headset I am sure i might look like i was acting odd. Perhaps that was reason. It is one explanation that fits the facts.  I haven't seen any tied to skin color

    Well (none / 0) (#111)
    by jbindc on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 05:43:41 PM EST
    I've seen (and heard) people have excited conversations on the phone plenty of times, in plenty of situations - light, dark, sunny, rainy, snowy, etc..  Not once did I even begin think any of them were on drugs.

    So my question stands - (and obviously no one here actually has an answer, other than a snarky one, since I don't think GZ answered it) - what was he doing above and beyond just "walking in the rain and talking" that made GZ think TM was on drugs "or something"?


    No idea (none / 0) (#81)
    by Yman on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 11:13:39 AM EST
    He never said.  He merely made vague statements of suspicion - "looks like he's up to no good, or he's on drugs or something.  It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about."

    That doesn't indicate someone is behaving like they're "on drugs".  It indicates a teenager who is walking in the rain.  It "tells me" he was searching for words that would justify his nebulous suspicions.


    Specious. (none / 0) (#90)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 12:50:35 PM EST
    It "tells me" he was searching for words that would justify his nebulous suspicions.

    As opposed to ... (none / 0) (#93)
    by Yman on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 01:09:53 PM EST
    The fact that he told the dispatcher that (whether he was right or wrong) tells me that TM was just not quietly walking slowly down the street.

    ... the claim it was mirroring.


    BTW - The original claim expressed the opinion that Zimmerman's statement ("looks like he's on drugs or something") confirmed that Martin was not just "quietly walking down the street".    Yet Zimmerman stated no specific behaviors that would give the basis for this conclusion, other than walking in the rain and "looking about" including at the houses - which were in every direction.  If that's the basis for his conclusion, it's silly.  If there were other reasons, he didn't think they warranted mentioning to the dispatcher.


    All you have is the race card (1.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Jack203 on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 10:28:45 AM EST
    It truly is pathetic.

    There is zero evidence George is racist. In fact a mountain of evidence he is NOT.  There is zero evidence he felt Trayvon was suspicious specifically because he is black.  In fact GZ wasn't even sure in the phone call to NEN, until Trayvon headed directly towards his car feigning there was something in his waist band.

    All you DO have is your whining and poor me loser attitude.

    TM's pants were low slung (look at the 7-11  video), TM was stoned, and it doesn't matter what color he is no matter how much you want to complain about it.  Why don't you pick a case where there actually is racism involved.


    Once thing you DO make a good case for (none / 0) (#95)
    by ruffian on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 01:20:11 PM EST
    is the legalization of marijuana. If being stoned means I can walk and talk on the phone, threaten someone menacingly by pretending I have a weapon in my pants,  and knock a 200 lb man down to the ground with one perfectly placed  punch to the nose, then I might start smoking pot myself.

    lol... (none / 0) (#117)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 11:20:36 AM EST
    it's the wonder herb that works wonders, but even the sacrament can't do all that! ;)

    17 year olds (3.67 / 3) (#68)
    by Jack203 on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 09:35:44 AM EST
    Maybe some grew up in sheltered communities, but where I come from many 17 year old are impulsive, impetuous and brash.  Especially the types that barely attend school and are constantly suspended/fighting.  And if I'm thinking of the "bad" teenagers I knew growing up.  Every single one of them was white.

    Why do you think so many teenagers are killed in car crashes?  Frontal lobes aren't fully formed yet.  It is much harder for teenagers to fully understand the consequences of risky and dangerous behavior.


    exactly (none / 0) (#63)
    by pitachips on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 09:19:06 AM EST
    I don't know (none / 0) (#72)
    by ExcitableBoy on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 09:42:42 AM EST
    about both races being reversed, but if Trayvon was white, I'm not convinced George would have kept driving. He obviously noted T's race (though he didn't mention it until asked), but he's called the cops on whites before. I have no direct evidence of this, but the racial angle was a bit of an issue, shall we say. Since various articles stated that "most" of his calls dealt with blacks, some must have specifically dealt with whites, or we would've heard much more about it. Further, he was definitely behavior profiling, noting the meandering in the rain, standing around, "high" behavior (perhaps from talking into an unseen headset), etc. That he was wrong about this makes it no less relevant.

    And his noting that Trayvon was black doesn't make him racist, IMO. The fact was that most of the burglary problems where the race was known involved young black kids. He's be an idiot to purposely ignore that.

    All in all, though it's a guess on my part, I think if everything is the same except Trayvon's race, he still calls.


    Actually (2.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Darby on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 12:22:16 PM EST
    You can hear on the call he is not sure of his race.  He says I think he is black when asked and confirms it only when trayvon is up close. The idea he was suspicious due to his skin color has no basis.  The audio shows that  he was suspicious because he was staring into a window of a home that z knew he didn't live in, in a neighborhood that had burglaries, was behaving as if on drugs( which he was).  

    Actually, this is completely false (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by Yman on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 12:45:19 PM EST
    The audio shows that  he was suspicious because he was staring into a window of a home that z knew he didn't live in, in a neighborhood that had burglaries, was behaving as if on drugs( which he was).

    Martin wasn't "staring into a window of a home Z knew he didn't live in."  If he was doing something that suspicious, Zimmerman would have mentioned it to the NEN dispatcher.  What he actually said was "it's raining and he's just walking around, looking about" and "he was just staring, looking at all the houses."  Which, in a dense condo development, is virtually impossible to avoid, unless he only looked straight down at the ground or up at the sky.

    Finally, the trace amounts of THC in Martin's blood do not establish that he was acting impaired or "on drugs".


    Actually, this is completely false. (none / 0) (#89)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 12:49:34 PM EST
    Which, in a dense condo development, is virtually impossible to avoid, unless he only looked straight down at the ground or up at the sky.

    Really? (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Yman on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 01:02:20 PM EST
    Care to explain how you are able to avoid "looking at all the houses" when there are houses in every direction?

    It is not completely false (none / 0) (#100)
    by Darby on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 02:37:30 PM EST
    You are correct in that the first of he two statements are not from the NEN call, but the second two are. The first I from a police interview.
    ""He was looking at the house intently, the same house I had called about before. He stopped in front of the house," said Zimmerman. "You know what, he's not walking briskly to get out of the rain. He didn't look like a marathon runner who trains in the rain. He was just walking slowly and I said something's off. So that's why I called non-emergency.""

    Is there any evidence  that skin color is the reason he called?    In fact, when asked about the suspect race he wasn't sure and confirmed it later in the call.

    Oh and the THC amounts may have impaired his behavior, according to the states own witness


    Just as I said - false (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Yman on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 08:51:43 PM EST
    Ohhhhhh ... you mean he didn't say that Martin was "staring into a window of a home" and it wasn't on the audio of the NEN call.  You mean that later he claimed that Martin stopped in front of a house and was looking at it "intently".  The most suspicious of all the behaviors he's alleging, and he didn't think was worth mentioning when he was describing Martin's behavior to the NEN dispatcher.  Not to mention the fact that he was close enough to see Martin face as he was "looking at the house intently", but he's not even sure what race Martin is.



    Actually (none / 0) (#112)
    by jbindc on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 05:44:58 PM EST
    He was standing on the lawn of a home, looking at the house that a) had been broken into previously and b) that GZ knew the neighbors weren't home.

    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Yman on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 08:56:54 PM EST
    See if you can tell the difference between your statement:

    He was standing on the lawn of a home, looking at the house that a) had been broken into previously and b) that GZ knew the neighbors weren't home.

    and the OP's claim that I pointed out was false:

    The audio shows that  he was suspicious because he was staring into a window of a home that z knew he didn't live in, in a neighborhood that had burglaries, was behaving as if on drugs( which he was).

    I made it easy.


    It is not disingenuous (5.00 / 0) (#56)
    by Darby on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 07:49:34 AM EST
    The facts bore out that there was no probable cause for arrest. There would have been no political pressure to make n arrest. If Zimmerman had been black and arrested, it would have been wrong. Just as it was wrong Zimmerman was.  The  fact that  sometimes blacks (and people with the low imcomes) are not treated fairly isn't a burden Zimmerman needs to bear.

    I don't think the verdict means the (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by ruffian on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 09:25:07 AM EST
    arrest and trial were unwarranted. I respect Jeralyn's opinion, but disagree. There were contested theories regarding the self defense aspect that I think it was appropriate to put before a jury. If both were black I would feel the same way.

    MOM & West are right (none / 0) (#71)
    by turbo6 on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 09:42:14 AM EST
    This case had to be tried in a courtroom and not in the media. Whether you believe all, some or none of what Zimmerman said there was massive reasonable doubt here. Our Justice system worked, despite many hurdles, as one should never be convicted without proper evidence.

    O'Mara said more than that (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by cboldt on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 09:52:36 AM EST
    O'Mara said the case should never have been brought.  That it was brought due to public pressure, and the public pressure was the result of the press (false) characterization of the incident.

    If the initial press accounts had portrayed Martin as a troubled teen tough (not saying that's accurate, just saying), and Zimmerman as a thoughtful pudgy victim of an undeserved beat down, the public reaction would have been remarkably different.

    But, once the prosecutor decides to throw probable cause to the wind, yeah, the case needs to be tried in court.  The press couldn't even bring itself to report accurately on court proceedings.

    People on both sides are entrenched.  The meme that Martin did nothing wrong, that it is not possible that he did anything wrong, just walking home, Zimmerman hunted him down, that meme is alive and well in the press, and in the minds of many.